|
Ancient English Common law isn’t very much based on Roman law but keep going.
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 13:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:40 |
|
|
feedmegin posted:No? The US governmental setup right now is pretty much a copy and paste of 18th century England. Congress == the Commons, the Senate == the Lords (note: not originally directly elected), the President == the King as of the late 18th century, so rather more powers than the Queen has in the UK today. The USA has and has always had federalism which is completely different than England or i guess more accuracy the United Kingdom . Tho recently Scotland and wales iirc got some devolved powers
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 13:03
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:No? The US governmental setup right now is pretty much a copy and paste of 18th century England. Congress == the Commons, the Senate == the Lords (note: not originally directly elected), the President == the King as of the late 18th century, so rather more powers than the Queen has in the UK today. The original Roman Senate was not elected directly either, but was rather chosen by the censor, who in turn was elected by the Centuriate Assembly, which you gained access to via citizenship. It's true that a US president has more power compared to a Roman Consul, but the very fact that he is elected makes it far closer to a Roman model of executive power than a King. It is a natural fusion of ideas from the Enlightenment, English Common law, and Roman constitutionalism. The UK applied to join later on, they were not founding members; the core of the EU was always the French-German alliance, something that was thought to be impossible before the modern era. As long as France and German can settle their differences, the EU will endure. If there was a world where Germany and France did not share the same legal base, then I doubt the EU would exist today. At any rate, its pretty obvious that if you wiped out the Roman Empire from history, the USA wouldn't exist at all, and neither would the UK. Legal concepts invented in Roman times survived to the modern era, and I don't believe anyone would argue against that point; yes, the UK's common law is more distant from Roman law than that of Continental Europe, but certain ideas were borrowed from Roman law during the 19th century, alongside the equity system. Chancellors in the UK were usually well educated in both common and Roman law in parallel. P.S The Republic of Ireland is part of the EU still; you got confused with Northern Ireland. Cetea fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Sep 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 13:26
|
|
|
Cetea posted:The original Roman Senate was not elected directly either, but was rather chosen by the censor, who in turn was elected by the Centuriate Assembly, which you gained access to via citizenship. It's true that a US president has more power compared to a Roman Consul, but the very fact that he is elected makes it far closer to a Roman model of executive power than a King. It is a natural fusion of both systems. I think you're misunderstanding his point. The powers of the president were modeled after the powers of the king of england at the time. They weren't modeled after consular powers. The selection of the president was based upon prior representative governments, but the executive power of the president was based on the power of the king. Outside of the selection process, the president more resembles a king than a consul.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 13:31
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I think you're misunderstanding his point. The powers of the president were modeled after the powers of the king of england at the time. They weren't modeled after consular powers. Yes, I fully agree with your post entirely, especially the prior representative government part; to my knowledge, the earliest known representative government in the world is Roman. Athenian democracy was direct (and a tyranny by majority). Selecting the proper "King" as it were, greatly benefited the USA in its infancy, and the term limits imposed also aided in preventing stagnation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 13:43
|
|
|
Anyway this discussion completely eludes the Articles is confederation which are hugely important for context on what the framers (not Founding Fathers!!!!) may or may not have been thinking at the time .
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 13:44
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Anyway this discussion completely eludes the Articles is confederation which are hugely important for context on what the framers (not Founding Fathers!!!!) may or may not have been thinking at the time . Great - what we need right now is more ranting about AOC.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 13:54
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Anyway this discussion completely eludes the Articles is confederation which are hugely important for context on what the framers (not Founding Fathers!!!!) may or may not have been thinking at the time . quote:The term "framers" is sometimes used to specify those who helped "craft" the Constitution. "Founding Fathers" often refers to people who contributed to the development of independence and nationhood. However, the notion of a "framer" or a "Founding Father" is not easily defined. For purposes of this website (https://www.constitutionfacts.com), "Founding Fathers" are individuals who had a significant impact on the Constitution either directly or indirectly. I would say that the framers key goal in the original Articles of Confederation were trying to tie together the different colonies to a common objective; it was pretty practical in nature. The Constitution on the other hand, seems to me to be a clear attempt at actively trying to create a Republic that would stand the test of time, and again, the Roman Republic is one of the key states that contributed to how the Enlightenment thinkers defined a republic (alongside others like the Hanseatic League). I welcome all points to the contrary of course.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 14:00
|
|
|
The key aspect of the Constitution as ratified in the 18th century is the maintenance of an historically awful system of chattel slavery and white male supremacy. What this has to do with the Romans I don’t know other than that some words are shared and the framers consciously evoked European power structures to put a pastiche of legitimacy on their colonialist slave state . What new ideas it had are federalism as mentioned which has evolved to be something of an interesting thing in the 20th and 21st century. euphronius fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Sep 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 14:11
|
|
|
The ideas of liberty and equality were hollow mockeries until at least the 1960s and had nothing to do with Jefferson Washington et al, who are historical monsters
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 14:13
|
|
|
euphronius posted:What new ideas it had are federalism as mentioned which has evolved to be something of an interesting thing in the 20th and 21st century. I'm not sure that was particularly new even, check out Switzerland and the Netherlands in the 18th century.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 14:30
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The key aspect of the Constitution as ratified in the 18th century is the maintenance of an historically awful system of chattel slavery and white male supremacy. Well I'll apologize for linking wiki again, but it's the clearest for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#History Yes, we all see slavery as a terrible evil in the modern world today, but what ancient society did not have slaves? The Chinese forced millions to labour away at the Great Wall and other grand projects, and took hundreds if not thousands of young girls by force to serve in the Imperial Harems every year, the Ottomans raided the Spanish coastline for free slaves, the Greeks saw slavery as part of the natural order, the Nigerians traded in slaves before European contact, and continued to do so officially till 1926, and etc. Serfs in the medieval world were also were taxed at insane rates (and you could trade them in Imperial Russia, and breed them as well), giving them barely enough to survive the winter (though some were able to save for generations to eventually buy their way to freedmen status). Ultimately, we're all human, and past societies all saw slaves as a way to do large amounts of labor with minimal costs, similar to domestic animals. If we were to celebrate liberty, then we should celebrate how modern machines made slavery entirely redundant. However, that point veers away from the ancient history part of the thread. I just think it's silly to self flagellate about how bad "X" culture was in the past, when they were all pretty much horrible by our standards, especially since we are not personally responsible for events in the past; I'm sure future people will also think that we have barbaric practices too. Calling past individuals monsters when they were adhering to their cultural norms is also just imposing modern views on a time where such ideas did not exist yet. I personally wouldn't call a early Homo Sapiens killing an entire enemy tribe and eating their flesh monstrous, so long as this was all they understood, and that it was considered normal by society at the time; if they did it in the 300s in Italy however, then naturally that would have been seen as monstrous by the people of the time. P.S I'm still very interested in why the tribes specifically mentioned by Tacitus did not have slavery; I don't recall there being another source outside of Tacitus, but it seems unlikely he would make up this particular point. Is there any archaeological evidence that points to how that specific tribe did not have slavery? Or is it more likely that Tacitus was just mistaken. Cetea fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Sep 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 14:33
|
|
|
Im not getting into wikipedia debates with a slavery apologist. No thanks.
euphronius fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Sep 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 14:36
|
|
|
Cetea posted:On that note, it's very interesting to me how the ancient Germanic tribes (that I know of) were the only society during that time that was anti slavery; does anyone know of any studies that examined why this was the case? Everyone else thought it was just natural. Wait, what? Where did you get that notion? That's nonsense. There is archeological evidence for slavery in both the Goths and Visigoths off the top of my head, and that's completely ignoring all those guys living north of the Baltic who were not shy in the least about raiding their neighbors for slaves. edit: if you're just basing it off tacitus that's a problem, and frankly explains a lot of your weird posting in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 14:36
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I'm not sure that was particularly new even, check out Switzerland and the Netherlands in the 18th century. Its def not unique but the American version became popular and was adopted by off the top of my head the current German state, Brazil, Canada, etc Also Im no Swiss history expert but that has always been more of a confederation which was tried twice in the USA and didnt work for oligarchs. euphronius fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Sep 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 14:38
|
|
|
Cetea posted:Ultimately, we're all human, and past societies all saw slaves as a way to do large amounts of labor with minimal costs, similar to domestic animals. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 14:40
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Wait, what? https://www.jstor.org/stable/23039695 That's the only one I've found so far, and naturally they also question Tacitus as a source. It makes sense that the Goths and Visigoths were slavers, given that they were conquerors. I just wanted to see if there were other sources corroborating Tacitus' claims.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Wait, what? Tacitus describes the Germani as having a freeman-freedman-slave society, though. Nothing in Germania should be taken as gospel of course; ancient ethnography was rarely rigorously sourced or without ulterior purpose, and Tacitus had very likely never gone beyond the German frontiers in person. But he definitely never says that germans don’t keep slaves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 14:46
|
|
|
Cetea posted:https://www.jstor.org/stable/23039695 This is a misreading. Tacitus says in the relevant passage that Germans do not keep specialized domestic slaves like Romans, not that they do not keep slaves at all. quote:Slaves in general do not have particular duties about the house and estate allotted to them, as our slaves do. Each has control of a holding and home of his own. The master demands from him a stated quantity of grain, live-stock, or cloth, as he would from a tenant. To this extent the slave is under an obligation of service; but all other duties, including household work, are carried out by the housewife and her children. To flog a slave, or to punish him by imprisonment and hard labour, is very unusual; yet to kill one outright is quite common. But they do this, not as a strict enforcement of discipline, but in a fit of passion, as they might kill an enemy - except that they do not have to pay for it. Freedmen rank little higher than slaves: they seldom have any influence in a household, never in the state, except among the tribes that are ruled by kings. There they rise above free men and even above noblemen. Elsewhere, the inferior status of freedmen is a proof of genuine liberty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 14:48
|
|
|
skasion posted:This is a misreading. Tacitus says in the relevant passage that Germans do not keep specialized domestic slaves like Romans, not that they do not keep slaves at all. Got it, thanks for the info!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 14:50
|
|
|
Cetea posted:The Chinese forced millions to labour away at the Great Wall and other grand projects quote:and took hundreds if not thousands of young girls by force to serve in the Imperial Harems every year Typo fucked around with this message at 14:56 on Sep 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 14:53
|
|
|
skasion posted:This is a misreading. Tacitus says in the relevant passage that Germans do not keep specialized domestic slaves like Romans, not that they do not keep slaves at all. That makes it sound like ancient German slavery was very similar to medieval serfdom. Even the freedmen who "rise above free men and even above noblemen" in "the tribes that are ruled by kings" sound like medieval ministeriales. I'm not sure if this is evidence of actual continuity of social institutions, or just coincidental.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 14:55
|
|
|
Cetea posted:especially since in traditional Chinese society, the merchant class was considered the lowest of the low. This is wrong, stop repeating pop history
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 14:57
|
|
|
Typo posted:This is wrong, stop repeating pop history That is how it is stated by Confucius; granted society did not always adhere to Confucius' order, as legalism had a much heavier impact on the upper classes. Confucius valued social order above all, and considered merchants to be disruptive due to fluctuating prices. This does not mean that merchants could not gain wealth, only that society did not approve of them much in general. Typo posted:Those weren't slaves, it's not unlike the Pyramids: peasants were required to perform a certain amount of labor per year for the state as a form of taxation and that included working on public projects. But they weren't slaves. As for the imperial harem, that was only the case for high ranking families; there are also plenty of records of young women from poorer regions that were taken to the harems; granted many of them might see it as an opportunity, but many were also forced, especially if they were from the surrounding tributaries (usually sent as 'gifts'). The Qin section of the Great Wall was mostly built through forced labour by prisoners, slaves and soldiers (in an era where owning a sharp blade that was a bit too long would get you arrested, it was pretty easy to be a criminal); supposedly 400,000 workers died building that section, and was buried underneath it, but that number is probably made up for emphasis. Junius P. Rodriguez. "China, medieval". The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery It would be interesting to see what we would find with ground penetrating radar there. During the Tang, they forbade the enslavement of free peoples, but allowed enslavement of foreigners (Turks, Persians, Vietnam and Korean slaves were all common); it was very similar to that of US slavery in terms of how they only enslaved foreign peoples, as opposed to Roman slavery, which also allowed debt slavery for anyone who wanted it. The Qing later tried to outlaw slavery, and succeeded to some extent. Cetea fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Sep 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 15:02
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:That makes it sound like ancient German slavery was very similar to medieval serfdom. Even the freedmen who "rise above free men and even above noblemen" in "the tribes that are ruled by kings" sound like medieval ministeriales. I'm not sure if this is evidence of actual continuity of social institutions, or just coincidental. I think it is probably more important that between Tacitus and medieval unfreedom, Roman rural society was thoroughly reorganized and the free rural poor were in large part degraded into unfree, or at least less free, coloni. The similarity with the ministeriales is interesting, but also has its parallels in Roman society — plenty of emperors were criticized for or through their parvenu freedmen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 15:05
|
|
|
Cetea posted:That is how it is stated by Confucius In China merchants wasn't even a distinct class, for instance some of the merchant class bought or earned Jinshi (highest civil service)degrees which made them part of the bureaucratic class as well. There are also cases where degree holders -became- merchants as well. Elite Families frequently sent one son to the civil service exams, but another to do business. In practice much like modern day America the social status of merchants just depended on how much money you had. The rich ones got to consort and play on equal footings with their government official counterparts, on the other end the street vendor ofc, are the lowest part of society. But this isn't different from modern day America: hot dog sellers do not have high social status either. Typo fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Sep 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 15:08
|
|
|
Cetea posted:That is how it is stated by Confucius; granted society did not always adhere to Confucius' order, as legalism had a much heavier impact on the upper classes. Confucius valued social order above all, and considered merchants to be disruptive due to fluctuating prices. This does not mean that merchants could not gain wealth, only that society did not approve of them much in general. Individual sources, be they confucious or tacitus, are not authoritative statements on how things were. This is ignoring the fact that you are also speaking in generalities about cultures that span huge swaths of both time and space. Even if we accept confucious as 100% accurate (which we should not) he is still describing the 5th and 6th century BCE in the area of modern north eastern China. He's not going to be much use as a direct description of how things were in, say, the Han era, much less something like the Yuan dynasty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 15:10
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Individual sources, be they confucious or tacitus, are not authoritative statements on how things were. Aristotle condemned merchants in this writings as corrupt parasites who didn't produce anything. Cetea is doing the equivalent of assuming the west must be very anti-merchant after reading about Aristotle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 15:14
|
|
|
Typo posted:This wasn't the case either, serving in the imperial harem was a highly coveted position. Not only were the material conditions great, but you gain the opportunity to gain a lot of political influence through the emperor or even be the mother to a potential heir. High ranking noble families voluntarily sent their daughters to become concubines as a path to power all the time. This is obviously (among other things) highly sexist, but it's not slavery either. This might have been the case sometimes, but it was definitely not universally true. Thousands of women were taken as part of Goryeo's tribute to serve in the Yuan harems, and this was against very vehement protestations from both Goryeo and the women's families (and presumably the women too, not that anyone wrote their opinions down). Early Ming and Qing did the same in a slightly less extreme degree, and every time it went down in the histories as one of Korea's biggest grievances against their hegemon. Now ironically yeah, it was a position where they had an opportunity to gain influence--the women and all their masses attendants influenced things, you get Yuan-era Chinese writers complaining that they had to learn Korean to get by in the palace, complaining about how spoiled Goryeo palace women had it better than the poor Han women on the streets, Goryeo-style dress was the fashion in late Yuan and early Ming, Goryeo food made inroads etc, and the last Yuan empress was Korean--before the present day it was probably Korea's high watermark for international cultural pull. But that absolutely doesn't mean getting dragged off to China was highly coveted; they just made do with what happened. I don't know so much about it in a Chinese context but I imagine it was sometimes similar, even if there were some situations where it was coveted; likewise there were countries besides Korea that women were demanded as tribute from for the imperial harems. Likewise, aren't there lots of stories of emperors taking fancy to some peasant girl and dragging her away to the palace?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 15:21
|
|
|
quote:The Qin section of the Great Wall was mostly built through forced labour by prisoners, slaves and soldiers (in an era where owning a sharp blade that was a bit too long would get you arrested, it was pretty easy to be a criminal); supposedly 400,000 workers died building that section, and was buried underneath it, but that number is probably made up for emphasis.  It was forced labor in the sense that it was a form of tax. It was mostly just a labor tax levied on peasant households. Not slavery.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 15:24
|
|
|
Koramei posted:This might have been the case sometimes, but it was definitely not universally true. Thousands of women were taken as part of Goryeo's tribute to serve in the Yuan harems, and this was against very vehement protestations from both Goryeo and the women's families (and presumably the women too, not that anyone wrote their opinions down). Early Ming and Qing did the same in a slightly less extreme degree, and every time it went down in the histories as one of Korea's biggest grievances against their hegemon. Yeah I should have mentioned -mostly-, it certainly wasn't universally true
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 15:28
|
|
|
Typo posted:Aristotle condemned merchants in this writings as corrupt parasites who didn't produce anything. Cetea is doing the equivalent of assuming the west must be very anti-merchant after reading about Aristotle. They weren't "the lowest of the low" like Cetea claimed (that was the absolute scum of the earth, like butchers and tanners, naturally), but the merchants are lower on the Confucian pecking order, for how they "profit off the labors of others without contributing anything on their own." I dunno how universally that bias took hold throughout Chinese history but it was definitely a thing in Joseon-era Korea. Cyrano4747 posted:Individual sources, be they confucious or tacitus, are not authoritative statements on how things were. For how things were in Confucius' time yeah for sure, but keep in mind Confucius' writings and derivations thereof were looked to as a model to emulate throughout much of later East Asian history. I think he's not really comparable to any ancient western writer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 15:29
|
|
|
Cetea, let me be blunt: You are talking to a lot of people in this thread who are very, very knowledgable about these subjects. I haven't posted in this thread myself for a few years, but I know that the other A/T history threads attract people with PhDs in their relevant subjects, non-academic researchers with published books on the subjects, people with extensive (and very well researched ) blogs on individual niches, and posters who are active in professional non-academic capacities doing historical research and writing for companies. And that's before you get into the extremely common "goon who is just really interested in this poo poo and has read a ton of books on the subject based on years of talking to the dorks Cyrano just outlined." To give an example, I don't know if they still post here but we used to have a person who made their own steppe war bows, based off of years of research and examination of surviving weapons. That poster forgot more about ancient archery than I'll ever learn about a single subject in my lifetime. This isn't to say that someone has to be these things to read, enjoy, and contribute to a thread like this. But it is worth understanding that there are a lot of very knowledgable people in them and if you post poo poo that's wrong people are going to see it, recognize it, and refute it. If you want to dig in you need to have both an understanding of what your'e arguing and some solid sources to back you up. As someone who has been both a student an an educator, I've seen people do what you're doing a lot. You start with a couple of readily accessible sources, dive in, and think you see some connections. That's great. That's the first step towards being a researcher. But you're putting the cart before the horse. You shouldn't approach these issues from the perspective of what you think you know to be true, you should be approaching it from the perspective of what you want to find out. If you ask about the relationship of slavery to the ancient world I'm sure people here can give you entire reading lists of good books to check out. There's also a history book thread over in TBB if you need more sources.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 15:29
|
|
|
Koramei posted:They weren't "the lowest of the low" like Cetea claimed (that was the absolute scum of the earth, like butchers and tanners, naturally), but the merchants are lower on the Confucian pecking order, for how they "profit off the labors of others without contributing anything on their own." Sure, and Christianity theoretically condemned usury, that didn't stop the Medici from becoming one the most politically powerful families in Italy. Ideological rules often does not coincide with reality, not only that but neat labels and division of classes often does not apply (What is a Jinshi degree holder who chose to go into business?).
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 15:32
|
|
|
Oh yeah for sure, that's a good point; Joseon is probably the extreme outlier. I think Japan nominally had the same kind of pecking order too but by Edo times merchants had it very good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 15:34
|
|
|
Koramei posted:
Sure, they're valuable when talking about the role that Confucianism played in Chinese society in later eras, but you also need to go way beyond just his writings for that. That's like trying to use the Bible to talk about early medieval christian society. It needs to be part of the conversation, but as part of the larger context of belief and culture that informs the actions of a 10th century Frank. I mean, hell, at that point you need to have the same discussion about "what era to we consider Confucius's writings to be from" that you have with the Bible. IIRC the Analects weren't assembled until the Warring States period, a couple of hundred years later. When you're talking about Confucianism as a philosophy of state and society you really have to look at it as Confucius as compiled and interpreted by scholars who were very much affected by the Waring States period.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 15:36
|
|
|
Typo posted:Yes, and this is pop history and Orientalism, people just read a paragraph about Confucius on wiki and just believe this is true of China for 3000 years. Greek philosophers such as Aristotle said the same poo poo about merchants, and somehow nobody decides the west is anti-merchant after reading Aristotle. For a great deal of history in Western Europe, Jews were often used as scapegoats due to their position as merchants and usurers; granted this does have an element of religious persecution to it as well, as other merchants were not viewed as suspiciously (though they were still not well liked either). In the ERE, they did specifically regulate merchants often to control prices (and usually this resulted in black markets consisting of bartering going up instead of people buying bread at lower prices), and populist anger against merchants from the Latin West spurred Andronikos I Komnenos to embrace populist anger expressed by the poorer rural peasants and massacred the merchants in the Venetian quarter; this is the diplomatic act that resulted in a vastly degraded diplomatic structure for the Empire. It didn't help that he was a terrible emperor who left the Empire in chaos; he set in motion the chain of events that lead to 1204. The Medici in the West were powerful, but again people hardly saw them as paragons of society to emulate, unlike how they saw someone like Alexander the Great. But the history of people disliking price shifts and reaction to market forces goes back quite a long way, and still exists today. As for China, I would say that the major difference is that people don't view hot dog stand merchants as a threat to society in the US (some might admire them for trying to be entrepreneurs), but their equivalent in China would have been frowned upon them during the Han (especially since Confucianism was mostly spread by the Han; it wasn't a popular philosophy before then). The Song Emperors were mostly terrified of the military generals rising up against them, as that was how the first Song Emperor seized power; as a result they focused far less on regulating the merchant class; ultimately their policies lead to a military that was completely useless (as it was designed specifically for the Emperor to lead them, but the later Emperors were not trained in logistics or any other aspect relating to war). You make a good point with the merchants buying degrees, but that is more of an example of how enough gold can smooth over cultural biases, and less of an example of how the culture disliked the merchants or not. During the Tang, merchants certainly had a higher social station, as trade from the Middle East was very welcome, and bought in a great deal of profit for the government as a whole; it was much later during the Ming where China adopted an isolationist policy, with predictable results. P.S I'm very happy to be proven wrong on all counts if people can directly show me the evidence for it; isn't that the whole point of this thread? And if anyone does have a PHD on the subject at hand, I'd love to hear your opinion on it as well. EDIT: I would like to see the source that specifically states that it was only forced labour, and not slavery; we have direct written proof of slave transactions during the Tang, so it seems unrealistic how an earlier Dynasty like the Qin wouldn't use slavery, especially given how they needed a lot of manpower to finish all their projects on time. Cetea fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Sep 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 15:49
|
|
|
It’s your burden to be correct when you make declarative statements , not “ours” to teach you
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 15:53
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Okay here I want to speak to you clearly: is this how we're supposed to post in this thread now? what the gently caress. nothing about their posting says "crazy". it does, as you say, give the impression that far too much civilization has been played and taken too seriously, but crazy? are you really not able to tell the difference between cetea and the actual crazies we've had before? look. Cetea. i get the impression you're kinda young, or at least new to learning about history in detail, and also have read a LOT of pop history fairly recently. the thing is, in a lot of internet communities that would make you the most knowledgable person in the room, but not here! and there's a lot of pop history that's just...wrong. it's sensationalized, or biased, or has a number of other possible flaws. i would suggest just reading the thread, responding with shorter posts asking questions rather than ones that seem to exist to show off your knowledge, and being open to people's posts having good information even when we aren't citing a thousand sources
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 16:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:40 |
|
|
Jazerus posted:is this how we're supposed to post in this thread now? I can see that you have a good point, and I know a lot of sources have their flaws (particularly the primary sources if there is a political objective behind them); a reading list is always welcome!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 16:06
|
|